After reading the required readings, you will read and analyze the following sections of the article titled ‘Implementing Writers’ Workshop Into the Special Education Cla

Journal of Teacher Action Research 1

Journal of Teacher Action Research – Volume 8, Issue 2, 2022, practicalteacherresearch.com, ISSN # 2332-2233

© JTAR. All Rights Reserved

JTAR EDITORS

JTAR Journal of Teacher Action Research Volume 8, Issue 2, 2022

Getting Up Close and Cultural: The Impact of Cultural Simulation on FLES Learner 4

Learner Motivation

Lisa Peskar Jeremy W. Bachelor Implementing Writers’ Workshop in the Special Education Classroom 28

Taylor Oliver Improving Interior Design Writing Through Rubric-guided Classroom Activities: 49

An Action Research Project in Higher Education

Abbi-Storm McCann Laura Parson Language Matters to Newcomer ELLs: Positive Results Via a Simple, Modified Dual 69

Language Approach to Mathematics Instruction

Kathleen Brown Jose Cardoza Using Podcasts As a Means to Increase Secondary English Language Learners’ Motivation 79

To Converse in the Target Language

Kevin Grogan Anssi Roiha

JTAR About the Journal

Founded in 2013, the Journal of Teacher Action Research (ISSN: 2332-2233) is a peer-reviewed online

journal indexed with EBSCO that seeks practical research that can be implemented in Pre-Kindergarten through Post-Secondary classrooms. The primary function of this journal is to provide classroom

teachers and researchers a means for sharing classroom practices.

The journal accepts articles for peer-review that describe classroom practice which positively impacts student learning. We define teacher action research as teachers (at all levels) studying their practice

and/or their students' learning in a methodical way in order to inform classroom practice. Articles submitted to the journal should demonstrate an action research focus with intent to improve the

author’s practice.

Editorial Team

Co-Editors

Gilbert Naizer, Ph.D. April Sanders, Ph.D. Texas A&M University-Commerce Texas A&M University-Commerce

Associate Editors

Laura Isbell, Ph.D. Tami Morton, Ph.D. Susan Williams Texas A&M University-Commerce Texas A&M University-Commerce Texas A&M University-Commerce

Production Editor and Webmaster Chase Young, Ph.D.

Sam Houston State University

www.practicalteacherresearch.com

THE JOURNAL OF TEACHER ACTION RESEARCH 28

Journal of Teacher Action Research – Volume 8, Issue 2, Spring 2022, <practicalteacherresearch.com>, ISSN # 2332-2233 © JTAR. All Rights

IMPLEMENTING WRITERS’ WORKSHOP INTO THE SPECIAL EDUCATION CLASSROOM Taylor Oliver Abilene Christian University

Abstract Writers’ Workshop has developed prominence as a method towards providing authentic writing experiences. The purpose of this study was to determine what happens to student perceptions and quantity of writing when Writers’ Workshop is implemented into a special education setting. This study took place in a self-contained special education classroom of third-, fourth-, and fifth-graders. Data was collected through focus group interviews with the teachers, focus groups with two students from every grade, perception surveys, and writing samples. Surveys and focus group interviews were completed before and after the implementation. Writing samples were collected at the beginning, middle, and end of implementation. The constant comparative method, with initial coding followed by creating hierarchies or categories and supporting codes (Hubbard & Power, 2003), was used to analyze data. Through data collection and analysis three major themes emerged from this research: struggles in writing, attitudes about methods used, and understanding writing practices.

Keywords: teacher action research, Writing, Writers’ Workshop, Special Education, Authentic Writing, Process Approach, Elementary Writing Introduction Multiple hands were raised, and every journal had three words in it, the same three words we had written as a prompt the few seconds prior, this weekend I . It was then that I realized something had to change. How would I help every student at one time, and how does one help when nothing is written? It occurred to me in this moment that trying to find prompts that would be relatable and get these students to enjoy writing, were causing more chaos than anticipated. So now what? What do you do when writing seems contrived and inauthentic? Where is the passion that children have? Why is it not in their writing? This is the moment where every teacher begins asking themselves a series of questions. What do I do now? We have tried this for too long, and it just doesn’t feel right. I have heard of things such as Writers’ Workshop, but is it effective, and how do I start? Literature Review

THE JOURNAL OF TEACHER ACTION RESEARCH 29

Journal of Teacher Action Research – Volume 8, Issue 2, Spring 2022, <practicalteacherresearch.com>, ISSN # 2332-2233 © JTAR. All Rights

Clippard and Nicaise (1998) describe typical writing instruction as reductionism. They describe reductionism as writing being divided out into its own category or subject. It is then further divided by breaking the writing into segments of skills to learn at one time through daily or weekly lessons. A Writers’ Workshop method differs from this significantly. Students spend around 15-20 minutes with the teacher doing a mini-lesson over a specific writing skill each day. After the mini-lesson, students are then released into an independent writing time with teacher conferencing. The skills of writing such as revising, editing, details, introductions etc. are not reduced to being taught at specific times during the year, rather they are focused on in student writing year-round and may even be revisited during a mini- lesson if needed. The mini-lesson is part of what helps to create the process approach to writing that is seen in Writers’ Workshop. Clippard and Nicaise (1998) examined the Writers’ Workshop approach by promoting the writing skills and self-efficacy of small groups of students with writing deficits in the fourth and fifth grade and found it to be effective. Calkins (1985) said that reductionism could be considered “inauthentic because teachers select the students’ writing topics; and they focus on the product, as opposed to the writing process” (p. 3). More authentic experiences in writing would help students to focus more on the writing process as described by Calkins (1985). Clippard and Nicaise (1998) describe Writers’ Workshop as a more authentic method of writing instruction that focuses more on the process rather than the product. Specific complexities are described by Baum et al. (2012) that have been found to affect students while writing. Those complexities that affected student writers were “to clearly organize thoughts in a sequence, activate and sustain attention throughout the brainstorming and writing stages, and remember the rules of conventional writing, including word order or grammar, punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and formatting” (p. 10). These complexities were also observed within the researcher’s placement classroom. The process approach used in Writers’ Workshop has shown effectiveness in previous studies at addressing a few of these complexities. Schrodt et al. (2019) addressed these complexities through a study that focused on examining the impact of adding self-regulation strategies and growth mindset on writing and motivation outcomes for kindergarteners, through a Writers’ Workshop approach in which Schrodt et al. (2019) describe as, allowing space for children to explore writing both individually and collaboratively in both approximations and conventional formats. When Schrodt et al. (2019) conducted this study they found the following:

As the intervention progressed, students did not ask for assistance from the researcher and became more independent in their ability to spell words as they began to learn and employ spelling strategies. (p. 436)

Another instance where Writers’ Workshop was found to be effective in addressing the previously discussed complexities was in a study done by Gericke and Salmon (2014) addressing the use of mentor texts often used within Writers’ Workshop. Gericke and Salmon (2014) found “after reading the mentor texts aloud, students were more productive and motivated during the mini-lesson and independent writing time” (p. 8). Another implementation of Writers’ Workshop was done by Isom (2014) when she used illustrations to support the development of her kindergarten students’ writing. This was an inquiry-

THE JOURNAL OF TEACHER ACTION RESEARCH 30

Journal of Teacher Action Research – Volume 8, Issue 2, Spring 2022, <practicalteacherresearch.com>, ISSN # 2332-2233 © JTAR. All Rights

based method of learning in Writers’ Workshop where mentor texts were used to support students in creating their own picture books. Interestingly, Isom (2014) also describes these mentor texts used within Writers’ Workshop as being effective because students would actually “try out” new ideas noticed in the mentor texts when it came to writing/drawing. A benefit within Writers’ Workshop is the conferring with students that happens. Hawkins (2016) stated that during this time students are “taking ownership of their own ideas, advocating for their own learning, expressing their own desires, and conversing with their teachers as partners” (p. 9). Only a couple of studies have examined the use of Writers’ Workshop with students with disabilities. Clippard and Nicaise (1998) pulled students with writing deficits from general education classrooms to create a sample of participants and found that students in a Writers’ Workshop model scored higher on direct writing samples. Additionally, Sturm (2012) specifically looked at Writers’ Workshop in a special education classroom when he took a sample of students with developmental disabilities and then implemented an Enriched Writers’ Workshop model. The Enriched Writers’ Workshop model combined a differentiated writing process instruction with social communication and cognitive strategy instruction for students with complex writing needs across a wide range of ages. Methodology To begin the methods section, participants are described along with data collection and how that data is analyzed using hierarchical coding during the research. This study was conducted through a yearlong clinical teaching position, so the students and teachers were comfortable giving their honest opinions about Writers’ Workshop given the prior relationships established. Purpose. In this study, what happens after a Writers’ Workshop model is implemented during writing time in a special education classroom is examined. When one researches using Writers’ Workshop as an intervention, in many cases it improved writing for students of all ages. There was substantial research on Writers’ Workshop being used as a form of intervention; however, there was very little research on its use in special education settings specifically. The few studies involving special education did not implement a Writers’ Workshop into a special education classroom; rather, they pulled a group of these students for a participant pool. A self-contained special education classroom context is very different from general education or even pull-out special education. For example, students within a self-contained room are all considered to have a disability and are in the classroom all day with a certified special education teacher. As a result, curriculum is condensed, instruction must include more visuals and modeling, and there are typically more instances of work refusal along with many other behavioral challenges. For this reason, researching the implementation of Writers’ Workshop within an actual self-contained special education classroom can contribute to the knowledge of its potential to be used in various settings with similarities to the challenges discussed in the future making the study beneficial to research.

THE JOURNAL OF TEACHER ACTION RESEARCH 31

Journal of Teacher Action Research – Volume 8, Issue 2, Spring 2022, <practicalteacherresearch.com>, ISSN # 2332-2233 © JTAR. All Rights

Writers’ Workshop is an approach in which freedom and time is given to students to write authentically and independently on their own chosen topics. There are four elements to this workshop model. The elements are the following: mini-lessons, direct teaching on various writing skills and strategies, independent writing time with conferencing, and then a share time (Schrodt et al., 2019, p. 428). The main purpose of this research was to figure out what happens to student and teacher perceptions, as well as the quantity of writing when Writers’ Workshop is implemented into a self-contained special education setting. My research questions were as follows:

Research Question: What happens when a Writers’ Workshop is implemented in a special education classroom during writing time?

● Sub question 1: Does the model increase the amount of writing by the students? ● Sub question 2: What are the students’ and teacher’s perceptions of writing before and after the workshop is implemented?

When this study was conducted, the researcher was a graduate student conducting action research in a clinical placement classroom. This was a self-contained classroom that consisted of special education students all ranging from third to fifth grade. A co-teaching model was used for this placement at Burnett Elementary School (all names are pseudonyms) in Longhorn, Texas. The school was associated with the Longhorn ISD school district. The researcher and classroom teacher were responsible for planning instruction that was divided out equally through all subjects. During the study, all writing lessons were planned and implemented by the researcher, and the classroom teacher helped individuals throughout the room during independent writing time. The aides supported students in small groups if they needed more structured assistance. Writers’ Workshop was the model implemented. This model started with a 10-15 minute mini-lesson teaching a writing skill such as editing, revising, adding details, creating introductions and much more. These skills were selected by the researcher based upon the steps to writing and publishing a piece of work, or areas of need for multiple students the researcher noticed during the independent writing time. The students were then released into an independent writing time where they would continue a piece of writing or start a new one. Students worked through the process of creating a piece of writing over several days. They would implement skills learned in the mini lessons when their writing required it until their piece could be published. Although, during the research we did not get to it; normally the teacher will pull aside students for individual conferencing over their writing during this independent writing time as well. Previously, writing was taught by giving students a sentence stem such as “This weekend I…” If students needed assistance with spelling, grammar, punctuation, or capitalization then they would raise their hand and it would be addressed on a case by case basis. The context of the classroom was unique in that we had multiple adults able to assist in this way. Participant Selection. The participants in the study consisted of students in the third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade PALS (Practical Academics and Living Skills) or otherwise known as a self-contained special education classroom. There were 13 total students. The student demographics were as follows: 30% African American, 31% Caucasian, 23% Hispanic, 8%

THE JOURNAL OF TEACHER ACTION RESEARCH 32

Journal of Teacher Action Research – Volume 8, Issue 2, Spring 2022, <practicalteacherresearch.com>, ISSN # 2332-2233 © JTAR. All Rights

Philippine, and 8% mixed race. Of the 13 students, four were girls and nine were boys. Other participants included two teachers’ aides and the teacher of the classroom. All 13 students who consented and turned in an assent form were chosen to participate in the study. A parent letter with a consent form for parents to sign was also sent home and returned for those who took part in the research. The teacher and aides also completed a consent form before taking part in the research. The teacher and aides were chosen as participants intentionally, because they worked closely with most of the participating students in the study for a year or more and offered a good perspective. Data Collection. The data collection used was focus group interviews, student artifacts in the form of writing samples, and student surveys. The students served in this classroom were in a self- contained special education classroom. The Writers’ Workshop was implemented for four weeks. Focus group interviews took place with six students (two from each grade) and the teacher with the two aides at the beginning and end of implementation. The two students from each grade were chosen with purposive sampling (Patton, 1990). Students in grade levels with more than two students were chosen based on the survey results to select diverse attitudes toward writing. Focus group interviews with the students lasted about ten minutes. The teacher and aide focus group interviews lasted for about 20-30 minutes. All of the focus group interviews were semi-structured, with ten pre-planned but open-ended questions (Hendricks, 2017). The artifacts consisted of one writing sample per student which were collected before the model was implemented, two or three weeks after the model was implemented, and then again at the end of implementation. The student surveys also took place before and after the implementation of Writers’ Workshop. These surveys consisted of smiley faces on a Likert scale. There was a total of ten questions on student surveys. The researcher wanted to collect data in a way that established credibility. She did this by looking to the words of Hendricks (2017) when he states, “credibility, dependability, and confirmability can be established through triangulation, a process in which multiple forms of data are collected and analyzed” (p.71). Data Analysis. Data was analyzed with mixed methods. The constant comparative method, with initial coding followed by creating hierarchies or categories and supporting codes (Hubbard & Power, 2003). For transcribed data such as the interviews and surveys, 15 to 20 level 1 codes that emerged in the first 20% of the data were used to code the remaining 80% of the data (Tracy, 2013). Then the researcher developed three to five level 2 codes. The level 1 and 2 codes were important and recurring themes found within the data. These codes are displayed in a codebook (see Appendix A), that provides a color-coded list, definition, and example of corresponding data within the text. The themes that appeared from the coding of the data determined what additional data was collected. Memos were written for all level two codes. This method was how the focus group interviews and student surveys were analyzed. Student artifacts were analyzed based on the quantity (number of words minus any excessive repetition of words) written. Writing artifacts were taken before, during, and after implementation. Each artifact was given a total number of words written. The samples for all students during each of the three samples were averaged to get an idea of the average

THE JOURNAL OF TEACHER ACTION RESEARCH 33

Journal of Teacher Action Research – Volume 8, Issue 2, Spring 2022, <practicalteacherresearch.com>, ISSN # 2332-2233 © JTAR. All Rights

number of words written by the class as a whole. The researcher also took an average of the artifacts taken before implementation and samples during and after so that I could compare numbers before implementation against during and after. The Writers’ Workshop survey was analyzed through a Likert scale. Each question was rated one through four and then students were given a total number at the end. The higher the total number, the more positive perception of writing students had. The lower the total number reflected a more negative perception of writing. Results and Discussion Through data collection and analysis three major themes emerged from this research: struggles in writing, attitudes about methods used during writing, and understanding writing practices. These major themes were developed using focus group interviews with the teachers/aides and the students, student artifacts, and student survey responses. There were two aides, one teacher and me, the researcher in the study. Since both aides took part in many teaching activities they are referred to as teachers in the following findings and implications. Struggles in Writing. During the before implementation focus group interviews with both teachers and students, the researcher found many struggles in writing mentioned. A few struggles mentioned by teachers, were a reliance on adults for editing, handwriting or spelling barriers, struggles in punctuation, stuck on a thought frequently, and some dependency displayed through not using environmental print. The students described many of these same struggles in writing as well. One similar struggle was a will to learn handwriting. Teachers stated that students “struggled a little bit more with just the letters.” Students also made their own statements regarding the issue. When asked what they had to get help with during writing, one student stated “numbers” and another said “the letters.” Another common struggle addressed by teachers and students was punctuation. An example of this struggle being portrayed was when a teacher stated, “I think they get stuck on punctuation” when asked why students seemed to just be being stuck in general. Students were able to identify this as a struggle as well. When asked what was hard about writing and what they needed help with, one student responded “periods.” Another student gave an example of this specific theme when she described liking the new method of learning punctuation because it was easier, meaning that it was hard at some point before implementation. The last struggle observed from the research was that students disliked productive struggle. This was hard to find because the theme hid itself in comments from students about teachers being mean, not giving them help right away, or teachers yelling at them and making faces. Students made these comments frequently, so naturally the researcher had to figure out why. With much reflection, the researcher was able to determine that many of the instances students were speaking of were dramatized events in which teachers were pushing a little bit more of a productive struggle model for students. When students had to work harder at spelling by using environmental print or other resources, they became frustrated and assumed teachers were being mean. A few of these statements were as

THE JOURNAL OF TEACHER ACTION RESEARCH 34

Journal of Teacher Action Research – Volume 8, Issue 2, Spring 2022, <practicalteacherresearch.com>, ISSN # 2332-2233 © JTAR. All Rights

follows: “Mr. Holland doesn’t help me sometimes when I need help”, “Mr. Holland be like ya’ll try to do it ya’ll selves”, “He tries to make us sound it out.” Overall, you would think we are just fire and brimstone in this classroom, but after reflection of these moments an underlying theme appeared of students seeing our push towards the zone of proximal development as mean. This was one of the most eye opening, and interesting codes found in the data. Students were being required to work more independently on their writing, and they in turn took it as teachers being “mean”. When interviewed after the implementation, many of these struggles were no longer mentioned by teachers or students. One specific struggle addressed by both teachers and students afterward was getting stuck on a thought. The teachers discussed how drawing pictures and having an idea preplanned to write about seemed to help the students not get to writing time and just be stuck. A benefit of Writers’ Workshop was the fact that students had next steps ready to go when they did get stuck. For example, when they were done drafting there was a step of revising, then they were to edit and so on. Students did not have to feel stuck because the Writers’ Workshop model gave them scaffolding and ideas of where to go next in their writing. Students hardly mentioned at all being stuck and that being an issue for them after the implementation, and teachers stated it was happening less. Students still got stuck here and there; however, redirecting them became much easier than previously. The struggle of handwriting and wanting to learn it specifically did not present itself much after implementing Writers’ Workshop either. My thoughts are that students, and teachers both viewed writing as much more than words on paper, but rather saw it as a multifaceted craft in which the handwriting itself is just one small piece of that craft. Students still needed help with going through the writing process steps. This could have resolved itself with more time practicing the workshop model. This answers the research question of what happens when a Writers’ Workshop is implemented in a special education classroom during writing time, by showing us that their struggles in writing were addressed to some extent. This code is prevalent throughout the data; however, what it was specifically addressing seemed to have changed after Writers’ Workshop was implemented. This leads me to believe that struggles previously mentioned are no longer as much of an endeavor to students as present difficulties, such as mindset that still present in the after- implementation interviews. This theme of struggles in writing is significant to the study because it gets at the heart of teaching. We collect data to figure out where students are struggling and then, in turn, create a model that addresses their struggles. We wanted to know what happened if we implemented the model of Writers’ Workshop, and now we know. This model had the ability to address specific struggles that students presented in their interviews before implementation of Writers’ Workshop. The model appears to lend itself well to being able to address struggles, because it included a minilesson before students begin writing. In this minilesson teachers can target these specific struggles in precise ways. It even gave the opportunity for students to see it done in the teacher’s writing before they tried practicing it

THE JOURNAL OF TEACHER ACTION RESEARCH 35

Journal of Teacher Action Research – Volume 8, Issue 2, Spring 2022, <practicalteacherresearch.com>, ISSN # 2332-2233 © JTAR. All Rights

on their own. This scaffolding is what I believed to be helpful in addressing these struggles as the Writers’ Workshop was implemented. Attitudes About Methods Used During Writing. Students’ attitudes about Writers’ Workshop developed as a strong theme in the data. Much of the data used for this specific theme was found throughout interviews and surveys. As the after-implementation data was indexed and read through, it was found that students and teachers had many opinions on different methods or techniques used during the implementation of Writers’ Workshop. The students and teachers did, however, describe thoughts about methods that could be tried or were valued in the before and after implementation interviews. Teachers stated, “It helps dividing it up, and it’s giving them this little part to do and then you move on to the next little part.” Another teacher gave opinions about the methods used when he stated, “You can work more at your own pace. So, like you said it’s been good. I agree I like it.” It was also mentioned by a teacher, “They like the sticky notes. They like doing that.” Students described their attitudes towards methods used in the implementation as well. Students liked using special publishing paper. One specific student stated, “When we color paper” when asked, what was fun about writing? Another stated, “We needed to have our own folders.” In referencing their writing folders where they had personal word walls. The surveys showed that students had a slightly more positive outlook on fixing writing mistakes, planning writing, topics they get to write about, and displaying writing for others to see. These were all questions on the survey that addressed different methods used during the implementation of